Additive value of split-bolus single-phase CT scan protocol for preoperative assessment of lung cancer patients referred for video-assisted thoracic surgery
- 59 Downloads
We aimed to assess the additive value of the split-bolus single-phase computed tomography (CT) scan protocol to preoperatively assess patients with lung cancer, who were referred for video-assisted thoracic surgery, when compared to a standard staging CT protocol. We included 160 patients with lung cancer who underwent a split-bolus single-phase CT scan protocol (split-bolus protocol), which can acquire whole-body staging CT and pulmonary artery-vein separation CT angiography (PA–PV CTA) in a single acquisition and 160 patients who underwent whole-body staging CT (standard protocol). We compared the quality of the staging CT images of hepatic parenchyma, portal vein, and hepatic vein between both protocols. We also investigated image quality on PA–PV CTA images in the split-bolus protocol and recorded the number of patients that underwent the 3D PA–PV CTA imaging process. The split-bolus protocol for staging CT images demonstrated a slightly higher enhancement with regard to the hepatic parenchyma (p = 0.007) and hepatic vein (p = 0.006) than the standard protocol. There was no significant difference in the quality of the staging CT images between both protocols (p = 0.067). The mean CT number for the main pulmonary artery and the left atrium for the PA–PV CTA images in the split-bolus protocol were 289.1 HU and 172.8 HU, respectively. Among the images associated with the split-bolus protocol, 98.1% were of appropriate quality for 3D PA–PV CTA imaging. The split-bolus protocol is a dose-efficient protocol to acquire the staging CT and PA–PV CTA images in a single session and provides sufficient image quality for preoperative assessment in patients with lung cancer.
KeywordsSplit-bolus single-phase CT scan protocol Lung cancer Pulmonary artery-vein separation CT angiography Preoperative assessment
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
- 1.Nagayama Y, Nakaura T, Oda S, et al. Value of 100 kVp scan with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm on a single-source CT system during whole-body CT for radiation and contrast medium dose reduction: an intra-individual feasibility study. Clin Radiol. 2018;73:217.e7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hagiwara M, Shimada Y, Kato Y, et al. High-quality 3-dimensional image simulation for pulmonary lobectomy and segmentectomy: results of preoperative assessment of pulmonary vessels and short-term surgical outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:e120–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Mun M, Okumura S, Nakao M, Matsuura M, et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence-navigated thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy. J Vis Surg. 2017;2017:3–80.Google Scholar
- 10.Sato T, Date H. 3D CT simulation in minimally invasive thoracic surgery. J Vis Surg. 2017;2017:3–26.Google Scholar
- 11.Shimizu K, Nakazawa S, Nagashima T, et al. 3D-CT anatomy for VATS segmentectomy. J Vis Surg. 2017;2017:3–88.Google Scholar
- 13.Yao F, Wang J, Yao J, et al. Three-dimensional image reconstruction with free open-source OsiriX software in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy. Int J Surg Oncol. 2017;39:16–22.Google Scholar
- 25.Leithner D, Gruber-Rouh T, Beeres M, et al. 90-kVp low-tube-voltage CT pulmonary angiography in combination with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm: effects on radiation dose, image quality and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of pulmonary embolism. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20180269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar